LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, March 26, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Bob Kurtz, Linda Kurtz, Sandy Kurtz and others requesting the government of Manitoba consider taking the necessary steps to reform the Pharmacare system to maintain its comprehensive and universal nature and to implement the use of a health smart card.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. George Hickes
(Point Douglas): I
beg to present the petition of Thomas Prince, Cyril Raven, Thomas Webb and
others requesting the Family Services minister reconsider restoring funding for
the friendship centres of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honorable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of
the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the provincial
government has without notice or legalapproval
allowed wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not consulted Manitobans before implementing wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has not held public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping;
WHEREFORE your petitioners
humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request
the Minister of Labour to consider holding public
hearings on wide-open Sunday shopping throughout
BE IT FURTHER resolved that the Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the Legislature approves changes to the law.
PRESENTING REPORTS BYSTANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has considered a certain resolution, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the Annual Report for 1991‑92 for the Women's Directorate.
* (1005)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 22‑The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act (Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le secteur public), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
The honourable Administrator, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to introduce Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism have leave to introduce Bill 23?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, since this government has misled us and the public on public hearings on this bill‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We had already determined that there was no leave.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I
direct the attention of honourable members to the
gallery, where we have with us this morning from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Sunday Shopping
April 18 Policy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
Yesterday, we asked the government what their policy was on the issue of Sunday shopping.
The government had a press
conference on November 20 toannounce what they were
going to do on Sunday shopping, a week before this House sat. The
hypocrites across the way should be straight with the people of
The government promised in
this Chamber, to the people of
I would like to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that the bill that is presently before this House, which was passed to second reading, expires in the early April period, what is the government policy in terms of unlimited number of employees being able to work on Sunday for the Sunday, April 18, which is the first Sunday after Easter Sunday, which falls the week before? What is the policy of the government dealing with that Sunday?
* (1010)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite would not allow introduction of a bill with respect to Sunday shopping yesterday in the House and today he has all these questions about it. I also find it interesting that the member opposite, who has always been one who has talked about democratic process, does not acknowledge that there are many sides to this issue and many concerns out there in the community.
That is why
a trial proposal was put forward, to give opportunity for those who wanted to
see Sunday shopping in
We have never as a government tried to hide the fact that even within our caucus there are variances of opinion. The Liberal Party has never tried to be dishonest about that. They have said very straightforwardly, they have different views on it. It is only the New Democrats who every morning get wound up by the leaders of the unions of this province, who are given their marching orders, who stand out there like automatons and say, yes, Bernie, yes, Bernie, who have a closed mind on this issue.
We have an open mind on this
issue and we are willing to listen to Manitobans. We are willing to take
into consideration the views and the concerns of all Manitobans and to try and
come up with a proposal that is good for
Mr. Doer: The Premier will note, Mr. Speaker, that
he did not answer the question of what the government policy is on April 18,
which is a Sunday.
The government had a press conference on November 20 to tell us what their policy was on Sunday shopping, a week before the Speech from the Throne, three weeks before they could introduce the bill at first reading and four weeks before we passed it to second reading so the people could be involved in the public hearing process in the trial period. So let the government remember what they did in the so‑called trial period.
We have communities like Brandon voting against Sunday shopping, we have officials in the Department of Labour saying it is not working for the people of Manitoba, the retail sector are quoted as saying that, we have Penner's food store in northeast Winnipeg, a nonunion food store, sending hundreds and hundreds of coupons into the Legislature opposed to Sunday shopping.
I just simply ask the Premier: What is the policy on April 18? Is it unlimited numbers of employees or is it back to the consensus bill that was passed in 1987 in this Chamber?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, subhead in the story in yesterday's paper, or the day before's paper says: Workers unhappy, but most consumers prefer open doors.
So you can talk about all those people who are opposed toit. There are also many people who are in favour of it. We know that.
We are being straightforward and open and honest about the fact that there is a division of opinion. It is only the New Democrats who get wound up every day by their union bosses, who tell them how to vote, who are single‑minded and closed‑minded on this issue.
We are putting forward legislation that we believe appropriately addresses the concerns and the issues that are out there on Sunday shopping, and that will be the answer that this government puts forward.
The member opposite can vote
against it, as I am sure he will vote against anything this government does, in
any case, in his blind ideology. That is okay. We will let him go
against it, but we will put forward what we believe is appropriate legislation
to address the concerns of the people of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, again with the Premier's Barb Biggar rhetoric, he never answered the question. He never once answered the question.
The question is: Will Sunday shopping on April 18 represent a policy of this government to have unlimited number of employees, or will it be back to the 1987 piece of legislation that was passed by all parties that provided a compromise and consensus between small communities and large communities, between small businesses and large businesses, the consensus in Manitoba to have a made‑in‑Manitoba Sunday shopping policy? Will it be the consensus policy that was passed in this House in 1987 or the policy to have unlimited employees which the government has proposed as policy in their so‑called trial period last year?
* (1015)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, in his Bernie Christophe rhetoric, the Leader of the Opposition, of course, tells us exactly what is the position of the New Democrats, which is, close your mind.
We remember Bernie Christophe, what he said the night that that Leader of the Opposition was elected Leader of his party. Bernie Christophe said: The machine works.
Because these were not people, this was a machine that he was putting together to make the Leader of the New Democratic Party the puppet leader of that machine. That is exactly why.
If the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned, let him give leave for us to revert to the introduction of the bill so that then we can clarify all of his concerns.
Domestic Violence
Education Program‑Justice System
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Today we learn that a judge in this province has refused awoman a peace bond because she was not being threatened and there is some good in everyone. He was not going to do something about it; she should do something about it.
My question for the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) is: Since this judge is clearly unaware of the theories
and the problems surrounding domestic violence and those issues, why has
training for judges in the
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the honourable member has been brought to my attention. I have reviewed a transcript of the proceedings in the case the honourable member refers to.
Since that happened, the
issues that gave rise to the fear expressed by the complainant in that matter
have become the subject of criminal investigation. That is appening.
The matter is being taken, by way of a writ of certiorari, to the Court of
Queen's Bench to attempt to overturn the decision of that judge. We are
reviewing the transcript and the issues involved to see just
what is the appropriate action that ought to be taken by the Department of
Justice with respect to the judge in the matter.
However, on December 19, the regional director of criminal prosecutions issued a directive to Crown prosecutors that they are to henceforth take more of a role in terms of obtaining peace bonds for people who live in fear for their safety. That is a very different way of handling peace bonds.
In the past, women or anybody who wanted to have a peace bond were on their own. The Crown was not there to assist and they were faced with the whole justice system. It was their job to try to figure out how to make it work for them. That has changed now.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the Pedlar report was supposed to stop the kind of issues that we have to deal with on a case-by-case basis and enable the entire justice system to be educated and made aware of the issues surrounding domestic violence so individual women would not have to have this happen to them.
I would like to ask the minister why, since it is clear that his judge and other judges have not been given adequate training in the issues surrounding domestic violence, the minister has let the recommendation time frame that was in this recommendation by Ms. Pedlar, that the education of all members of the justicesystem be completed by December 1992, why two and a half years, almost three years after this report was initiated that deadline still has not been met and judges and members of the justice
system still do not get it.
Mr. McCrae: I cannot speak for the judge in
this case, because we are not complete in our review of this particular case.
I can say that there has been a significant improvement in the level of symposiums and traditional education that has been going on at the provincial court level as well as he Queen's Bench level since 1988.
The honourable
member may not recall, but it was back in 1988 that the government she supports
was reducing its commitment to judicial education and this government came
along and increased its commitment, so we are moving in the right direction.
Unfortunately, we do still
see hopefully isolated matters that come along and, as those things happen, we
take action to try to ensure that they do not repeat.
* (1020)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, given that the court system is likely not going to be open on Fridays starting this summer due to the 4 percent cutback on services by this government, perhaps the minister would consider using that time on Fridays this summer to conclude the education of the justices in this province and use that time to put forward those education initiatives so that we do not have to have yet another woman from Manitoba dealing with a judge who is unaware of domestic violence issues, who obviously has no cultural understanding of issues surrounding this case.
So let us use Friday afternoons in the summer‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put herquestion.
Mr. McCrae: I appreciate the honourable member's concern, and I even respect her
sincerity on this matter.
I can only say, would she please speak to her colleagues in caucus and get the same kind of commitment from the rest of them? They did not demonstrate it when they were in government.
Sunday Shopping
Public Hearings
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, the
government is trying to introduce yet another billon Sunday shopping. There
is no question that it is a divisive issue among the population of the
Will the minister responsible please tell the House why he did not hold public hearings when he was given adequate time between the 17th of December and today to hold those public hearings so that Manitobans could, quite frankly, increase their respect for politicians, not decrease it?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): As I responded in this House on previous occasions on this issue, this particular legislation will be dealt with in the same fashion as all other bills, will go to a committee, and there will be opportunities for Manitobans to appear at that committee in person or to send in submissions by writing.
Clearly, when you are having a trial period, there is a lot of merit to letting that trial period work itself through to allow Manitobans to see how it functions in their individual communities, to see how they deal with it and how it affects their daily lives, and then, based on that trial period, come to the public hearings at committee level and be able to deal with the issue after having experienced it.
Mrs. Carstairs: In all my years
in the Legislature, I cannot remember a time frame of three and a half to four
months between the passage of a bill into second reading and the failure to
call the committee on that particular bill.
Can the minister explain why the government chose to tell the people of this province that they would have the ability to participate in a dialogue on the trial bill, not the new bill but on the trial bill, and now have decided to reverse that position?
Mr. Stefanson: I am sure, as the
honourable member recognizes, it is quite unique to
run a trial period with various situations. This is one of the few times
I believe that has happened in
So clearly, as I have said, in responding to the first question, to allow that trial period to unfold, to then allow Manitobans to come forward after having experienced that trial period, to us makes a great deal of sense, rather than have public hearings early in the process before Manitobans have seen what the impact of the changes to Sunday shopping are in their communities, in their daily lives, how it affects them on an individual basis in terms of the convenience of shopping and need to shop and so on.
So to have the public hearings now, which we will be doing as part of the committee process, makes a great deal of sense.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we have been breaking the law since December.
An Honourable Member: No.
* (1025)
Mrs. Carstairs: We have been
breaking the law since December. The law that is on the books right now does
not allow wide‑open shopping. We have been breaking the law since
December.
We gave permission to have public discussions through moving this bill into the committee stage. We are now in serious jeopardy, I would suggest, all of us, as legislators, in once again making the public think that we are going to allow them to participate and then telling them, sorry, no way, you are not going to be allowed to.
Has this minister no concern whatsoever about the erosion of the processes of democracy in this province which would lead to this kind of behaviour on the part of this government?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of concern about democracy and participation. Manitobans will have the opportunity, as they do under all pieces of legislation, to come forward to committee hearings in this particular Legislature.
During the trial period, we as elected representatives obviously have the opportunity to interact with our constituents on a daily basis on this issue, to be in touch with them to find out how it is impacting them.
Certainly members of our
government took advantage of that during the trial period to find out the
feelings and the views of their constituents.
I certainly hope that members of the Liberal Party took the time to do the same thing. I hope the New Democratic Party took the time to do the same thing, although we know from their rhetoric that that is not the case, because they had their marching orders.
Home Care Program
Equipment/Supply Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
I am asking the minister: Prior to cutting the Home Care Equipment and Supplies program, will the minister confirm that a nonpaying alternative, one that does not take money out of the pockets of the frail and elderly, is in place so that people who are on home care and receive this equipment will not have to pay for crutches, will not have to pay for walkers, will not have to pay for bandages and gauze out of their own pocket? Will the minister confirm an alternative will be in place‑‑nonpaying?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend attempted to raise this issue yesterday.
I simply indicate to my honourable friend that maybe before he leads the charge that possibly some patience would be in order. It is only‑‑what is that phraseology?‑‑seven more sleepsbefore the budget.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I
hate to see the minister making light of this stuff, neither do the people of
How does the minister reconcile that statement he has just made? Seven more sleeps‑‑very, very throwaway. How does he make those statements in light of the fact that his own ADM, at a public reform meeting on Wednesday, Sue Hicks, said that the department was only now thinking about community services that they are going to put in place. The department is now only thinking about it, Mr. Speaker, and he gets light and makes jokes about a program that provides supports to the elderly and the infirm.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I can muster for my honourable friend from Kildonan, I will never accept my honourable friend's interpretation of what he believes he heard at any of the public reform meetings.
What happens in the process of change that we are embarked on, which I might add to my honourable friend in case he does not know, is the most open and informed process that exists for change and restructuring in the health care system in Canada.
The only reason he has the opportunity as a critic to sit and listen to some of the presentations, one of them of which he was at on Wednesday of this week, is that it is such an open process. It is not behind closed doors, as my honourable friend on one hand alleges and then comes with his own interpretation of what is said narrowly, partisan politically, to say, well, you know, this was stated.
Mr. Speaker, the man cannot
have it both ways. He cannot attend meetings which explain the reform
process and then criticize that he does not have information. My honourable friend better visit
* (1030)
Mr. Chomiak: It is obvious the minister does not care to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.
Ophthalmology Program
Service Reduction
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister of this most open and this most great process in all of Canada, the best in the Dominion of Canada, the minister said in Hansard, Mr. Speaker: How does he reconcile that with the fact that he has received a letter from the Citizens for Eye Care Education, who say that his decision to cancel a meeting to make an announcement this Wednesday on the ophthalmology program, the concerns about deteriorating service and, quoting: It should not
be at any cost to any patient's care nor to be impeded by political agendas?
How does he reconcile those statements with the cancelling of that program and the concern by all citizens out there about the deteriorating ophthalmology program?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again, I have to attempt to be very evenhanded in my reply to my honourable friend.
He is now alleging that the ophthalmology program, which has increased the amount of service available to Manitobans consistently since we came into office and has done more procedures for more Manitobans, is somehow not delivering service.
That is false. My honourable friend knows it is false. My honourable friend brings those statements to the House with the hoped‑for objective that he can somehow get a quick and dirty headline to further frighten Manitobans.
The system has been working. It has been expanding and providing more service in ophthalmology, cataract surgery and other initiatives in ophthalmology, than when we came into government.
In other words, Sir, under
Progressive Conservative government, it is better than under the NDP government, simply put.
Victor House
Funding
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Family Services.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker,
the minister advised a nonprofit group called Victor House in
My question to the minister
is: Will this minister now reconsider this ill‑advised action and
reinstate the funding and allow this highly regarded service for the mentally
disabled in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, this decision was made after a good deal of consideration and affects not only Victor House but an institution here in Winnipeg as well whereby we are going to have the individuals who have been housed in these institutions moved out into the community and, as part of the Community Living Initiative that was started, I believe, under the previous government, to take individuals out of institutions and put them into more home-style ccommodations.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister truly understands the nature of this program and that it is community oriented and that it does provide support services for these people who are mentally challenged in the community to be able to live in the community. There are support services; there are ongoing programs 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
My question is: How can you leave the mentally disabled to anguish in the community without support services? How can you justify this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and the House that there will be support services for individuals who are mentally challenged as they move from institution settings into more homelike settings within the community. Our staff will be working with those individuals to be sure that transition takes place smoothly.
Victor House
Funding
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my last supplementary to the Minister of Health and ask the Minister of Health if he would look into this and consider funding Victor House so that it can continue to play a role in the community to support the mentally disadvantaged, the mentally challenged, in the Brandon community.
The Minister of Health‑‑if
I could get his attention‑‑recently announced a multimillion dollar
program of funding for community‑based mental health services in
and will soon announce one
in
My question to the Minister
of Health is: Will he assume funding of the Victor House program?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my honourable friend the member for Brandon East's recognition that we have thought through community‑based services, that we are expanding community‑based services, that they are going to be in place, that they are going to work, they are going to be effective, et cetera, et cetera.
Maybe my honourable friend for Brandon East could talk to the critic, his colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who does not seem to understand that.
Dam Safety Program
Reinstatement
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Approximately two years ago, the department terminated the activities of the dam safety program, which prior to that time had employed three individuals who on a yearly basis checked approximately 100 dams around this province.
This work was not contracted out. It simply stopped being done around that time, approximately two years ago.
My question for the minister: It has now been more than two years since those approximately 100 dams were checked in the same way that they had been for many, many years. When is the minister intending, if ever, to reinstitute a dam safety program around this province?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question
as notice. In doing so, however, I am ssured that
there is no safety risk involved. There could well have been arrangement
made with another portion of the department or, indeed, with a sister
organization of the federal government, PFRA, that
has helped in a more effective way to provide this service. I will take
the question as notice.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the minister is not aware of the details of it. He needs to answer that question. It is a very important issue.
Again, for the same minister, prior to the termination, as I have said, approximately 100 dams were checked every year and reports were made by geotechnical engineers.
What changed approximately two years ago and, since that time, now allows this minister effectively, and his department, get out of the business of checking for the safety in the approximately 100 dams that they have direct responsibility for? Not the PFRA‑‑they have responsibility for those dams.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty accepting the premise of the honourable member's question.
I know that my Water Resources people are responsible for the operation of these same dams. I can indicate to him that they will all be in operation doing what they were designed for, collecting the spring runoff waters, whether it is the large structures at Shellmouth or the smaller ones at Stevenson or Jackson or the many dams that are located in different parts of the province.
They will all be in fully
operational status, and I am assuming that responsible engineering supervision
is provided to these structures with respect to their safety.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that they will be in operation. It is the safety of the operation of those dams that is being questioned here.
Mr. Speaker, on what basis can the minister assure Manitobans today of the safety of those some‑100 dams he is responsible for which, if not safe, he will agree pose enormous threats not only to property but in fact human lives and livestock if they are not safe?
On what basis can he assure
us of the safety of those dams in the season when those dams are indeed going to
be used?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I
really think the member does a disservice to Manitobans. If he is
suggesting that there is a dam in
responsibility to tell me, and I will get back to him very quickly.
To suggest that there are
lives at risk, property at risk is really not doing the people of
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I invite the honourable to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I very much resent the allegation offearmongering. The point is, the minister cannot assure‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to indicate toall members of
the House and to fellow Manitobans that the water runoff situation this spring
is normal, perhaps some higher waters in the
All dams will be performing
their functions as they were designed for in terms of water entrapment.
There is no structure in
Crow Benefit
Method of Payment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Farmers are aware that if this method of payment is changed, freight rates could actually triple.
We are told that the federal government is preparing legislation that will change the benefit this year.
I want to ask the Minister of
Agriculture if he has seen the documents that the federal government is
proposing and whether he supports changing the method of payment even though
the majority of
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the member keeps asking the same question. I guess I have to keep giving her the same answer.
Maybe if she reads Hansard some day before Question Period she would not have to ask the question.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very
important issue for western
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, if
the minister gave an answer, I would not have to keep asking questions on
behalf of the farmers.
There are many
proposals that are being floated around about how money will be paid to the
farmers. Will the minister tell us today what proposal he supports?
How does he propose that this money will be paid to farmers? Does he
support a national plan that all provinces will be treated equally, or does he
feel that northern
* (1040)
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, it is plainly obvious
that that member's mind is stuck on one track, head is in the sand. She
does not want to listen to
I have just told her in the
previous answer that we are in a process of very broad consultation with
Yet I will answer the latter part of her question. She said, should it be broadly based and everybody be treated equally? Absolutely. That has always been our position. That is why we continue to talk and discuss and consult, which is obviously what she does not want to do.
Public Hearings
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the issue works the other way around. I ask farmers to bring their information to me. That is why I set up meetings, and I set up another one this morning with the leaders of major farm organizations. I want their input to me.
She would like to be a dictator. I am not; I am a consulter.
Labour Force Development Agreement
Signing Announcement
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is making yet another announcement outside this House‑‑in this case, the Labour Force Development Board Agreement's signing.
The minister knows that over the last year and a half we have been raising questions consistently in the House about the Labour Force Development Agreement. I want to know why this minister has such little regard for the Legislature of this province that she is not prepared to make these kinds of statements in the House where there is an opportunity for the voices of all Manitobans to be heard.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to conclude and to bring to conclusion the signing of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement, which we do expect to bring to conclusion later this morning.
Consultations
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the minister explain whythere has been no consultation since June with the basic partners in this agreement‑‑labour, education, and equity‑‑since she so abruptly and unilaterally cancelled those discussions in June of last year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to that member several times that there are two separate issues. One is the signing of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement, and the other is the setting up of the private sector boards of the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development boards. She is confusing the two issues and has continually in her questioning.
Labour Force Strategy
Tabling Request
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Is the minister prepared at this time to table the labour force strategy of this government, which she claims that the government has been working on for the last two years and which has not seen the light of day?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, we will be bringing to conclusion the agreement, the Canada/Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement. Then further announcements will follow that signing.
Teaching Hospitals
Long-Term Patient Transfers
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Perhaps if I could have a
Page deliver these petitions, an indication of that
concern, to the Minister of Health. They are not in the formal petition
format for purposes of tabling in this House, so I hope that the minister will
look at those petitions very carefully.
I would ask him if he would tell Manitobans, through this House, how many patients have now been transferred to date. To which facilities have they gone? How many more will be transferred, and what is the deadline for completion of the process?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think that is finally an appropriate question from what used to be my critic in Health. I would be prepared to provide details of that information, but appreciate‑‑I think my honourable friend would understand‑‑I do not have that detailed information on the top of my head. I will attempt to provide that for her.
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he has dealt with the concern by many of these patients and their families about the mandatory process and whether he inserted into this process of transferring long‑term patients an element of choice, some consultation, and some consideration for patients' needs and family circumstances.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe a significant improvement in that process has been achieved over the last number of years.
Let me give my honourable friend an example around choice. When my honourable friend was making decisions in government, people choosing placement in long‑term care homes had no choice. They had to accept either a prolonged waiting period for the home of their choice or take the earliest available bed. We thought that somewhat unfair.
So we have allowed people to maintain the choice of their personal care home of their choice and an interim placement does not compromise that final choice. Mr. Speaker, that is a progressive change in policy that we have made to respond to the needs of seniors, their families and others, something that was not there in 1988 when my honourable friend, presumably, had input into that. I think there have been a lot of very good steps to improve the system, Sir.
* (1050)
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is by the minister's own documents that this government has indicated and has underlined the words "mandatory transfers" from the teaching hospitals to long‑term care facilities.
I would ask the minister, given the concerns expressed, if he has changed his mind about that mandatory system and if he is prepared to offer some choice to patients and their families and be considerate about their individual and family needs.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, let me try to deal with my honourable friend's concern, because I have already indicated the difference in ability to choose in our government versus theirs where there was no choice.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my honourable friend that, yes, we have asked that transfer to be completed by March 31. Is my honourable friend now saying that we should maintain at considerable cost long‑term care patients in our teaching hospitals? That is a complete reversal on my honourable friend saying we should move away from acute‑care hospital treatment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe my honourable friend might want to comment on whether she
agrees or disagrees with 240 new personal care home beds that are being
constructed in the northeast corner of
Is she also against that, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave tomake a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House will want to join me in extending congratulations to a member of our Legislature, who has been referred to at times as the dean of the Legislature, the Honourable Harry J. Enns, who attended on Tuesday of this week the 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in Washington, D.C.
At that conference the Minister of Natural Resources was presented with the 1993 Wetlands Conservation Achievement Award in appreciation of his outstanding ontribution to wetlands conservation.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I thank you and members of the House for the opportunity to have leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Last evening my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) attended the 110th annual
celebration of the Brandon Chamber of
Commerce in which Mr. Ray West was voted the Businessperson of the Year for
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Brandon East have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to join with my colleague the minister and the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) in congratulating Ray West for all of his service. I would say I cannot think of anyone in my experience more loyal and dedicated to a particular company for which he works. He has worked all his life virtually for the A.E. McKenzie Co. Ltd., and he has done a fabulous job. We had the opportunity of seeing Mr. West last week during the Economic Development committee meeting and the board of McKenzie Seeds when we discussed the annual report. There is no question that the company has done well with Mr. Ray West, and I only want to wish him many, many more years of success and many more years of health and service in the community. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SUPPLY‑INTERIM SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Ways and Means please come to order. We have been considering a resolution respecting the Interim Supply.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Chairperson, this question isfor the Minister of Northern Affairs.
Order‑in‑Council 173, 1993, it is indicated here that the community council of Poplarville has been dissolved. I would like to ask the minister why this was brought about.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Chairperson, that is a fair question, and the response is that the community with loss of population brought forward a resolution.
As he realizes, there are several types of community governance systems. One, there is the contact; others, the elected community council.
The community, because of numbers of people who moved away and have decided not to live there, the people from that community came forward of their own desire and petitioned the minister to have this kind of action taken. It is less costly for them and apparently more effective. So it was at the request of the community that changed the designation of the community.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I want to thank the minister for that answer and clarification.
I would like to ask the Minister of Rural Development, Madam Chairperson, I know that not only in my constituency but in others the REDI program that this government has put into process‑‑we are getting a feeling from the people that accessing the REDI program has been a tremendous difficulty for a lot of people.
I would like to bring up a specific‑‑even though I can appreciate that Arborg has recently been accessed through the REDI program for a study on the cheese plant, there are people out there who are still confused when they contact the Rural Development department as to exactly where and what criteria fall when they have a specific project that they would like to proceed with. They are getting mixed feelings as to criteria, whether they fit in that program, whether they do not fit in the program, what they have to do.
Can the minister just
enlighten myself on the process and some of the
criteria that the minister has indicated to apply for the REDI
program?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Chairperson, I would certainly be pleased to provide the member with some information regarding the REDI program.
The REDI program was introduced in midsummer last year, in 1992, and it was at that time that we began to receive applications for the REDI program. The REDI program was designed for communities and for businesses who in rural Manitoba may wish to either embark on feasibility studies to expand their existing businesses or perhaps a potential business that has not been established could apply for funding to assist with feasibility studies, market studies and to determine whether or not a business of that nature would be able to survive in a particular community.
Another program under the REDI umbrella was the Development Support program. The Development Support program was one where if a potential project was to be embarked on and if it met the criteria of being unique, of being one that would have lasting benefit to a community, that would provide a value in terms of the economic base to a community and would have the support of a community, it could be considered under the Development Support program.
Another program under the REDI umbrella is the Capital Infrastructure Development program. That is a program whereby municipalities or in fact businesses could apply for the assistance to the provision of infrastructure, such as water or sewer, hydro electricity, perhaps an access lane or other infrastructure kinds of initiatives to a business that might be locating or expanding in a particular community.
All of these programs have been outlined in fairly significant detail to all municipalities, to all Economic Development boards in local communities, to round tables, to
communities at large. We have had staff virtually crisscross this province and meet with interested groups to make sure that the public understands what the REDI program is all about.
In terms of the applications for Rural Economic Development programs, we have tried to streamline it so that the process itself is not a complex one. Many proponents do not understand whether or not their project may or may not qualify. To assist them, we have indicated that we would like them to just fill outa one‑page application form and send it in. That would take a couple of days.
* (1100)
In that time, we would be able to assess whether or not that project would be one that could be considered under the criteria that have been established for any one of the four different programs.
If it passes that first hurdle, information is quickly then returned to the proponent and then they can proceed to a more detailed application form, which would involve such things as the financial statements, financial plans, et cetera.
Once that application has been received by the department, it undergoes a fairly intricate due diligence process, but it is one that we expedite as quickly as possible and within six to eight weeks, a response then goes back with the approval.
If that project should not be approved because it does not meet the criteria, then that response goes back far more quickly than the six to eight weeks.
We have to date received about 150 or 160 applications at the REDI office. Of those that have been received, a good number have already been processed. I would say close to 50 applications have gone back with approvals already, another 30 or so are in various stages of approval and yet there are a number of projects that have been rejected because they did not meet the criteria.
We have committed something
in the neighbourhood of $4.1 million under the REDI umbrella, and that would include the program of
Partners with Youth, the Green Team, the administration of the Grow Bonds
Program, the Ayerst approval, plus the other
approvals that have been processed already by the department.
Madam Chairperson, we tried
to simplify the process as much as we can. I might tell the member
opposite that we have two staff people in the REDI
office. They are assisted by our local Economic Development officers
throughout the province from our regional offices. In addition, our Grow
Bonds officers also assist in the processing of application forms and indeed incollecting the information.
We are doing everything we
can to expedite every application that comes before us. For that reason,
we have incorporated the use of our regional staff and also our Grow Bonds staff, and we are in constant contact with proponents.
Sometimes the delay is not the responsibility of the department. In many
instances, the information that is required is not forthcoming from the proponent.
Therefore, we cannot process that application until all of the information is in.
In some cases, we have seen
that proponents for one reason or another are reluctant to share information
and yet this information is very necessary in order for us to be able to process
an application. I think the member would appreciate that because this is
public money we have to ensure that we go through appropriate due diligence
process, so that the public can be satisfied that we are simply not throwing
money at projects that may not be worthy, but indeed we are supporting projects
that will be of lasting benefit, not only to the community but to the province
as a whole.
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to thank
the minister for the answer. If I may then, in listening to his remarks,
it seems that the situation one of my constituents on
So I would appreciate it if
the minister would in fact‑‑th econstituent is a Mr. William Mowat,
whose proposal to the REDI program is for expansion
of the Matheson Island airstrip to promote the community, and to have on Matheson
Island an air strip. There is one there now if he wants to expand it so
that it can develop the community and also provide a source for the outcamps to bring people to
Now I would appreciate if the minister would take notice of Mr. Mowat's case particularly, and have someone within his department clarify for Mr. Mowat just why he does not meet the criteria.
I would think in discussing
the issue with him that perhaps this project would fit under the REDI program, and I would ask that the minister look into
this particular matter and get back to me with it. I would appreciate
that. Certainly, Mr. Mowat and the community of
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I do not have the details on each and every proposal that comes before the department. There is no way that I could keep track of whether or not a particular proposal meets the criteria. The staff evaluate every proposal that comes before them through a process that does not just involve my department, but indeed we also consult with otherdepartments, such as the Department of I, T and T and also the Department of Finance.
Now, Madam Chairperson, I
would have to tell the member that I would be prepared to pay attention to this
particular project that is before the staff and provide the member with a
written response as to whether or not it meets the criteria. If it does not,
then I think it is only fair that not only the member but indeed the enterprise
or the proponent would have an explanation as to why his project does not meet
the criteria. I would be prepared to share that with the member.
Mr. Clif Evans: I look forward to
dealing with this with the minister.
My next question is for the
Minister of Natural Resources. A few weeks ago, the minister had the
opportunity to meet with the
I would ask the minister, can
he tell us where and what he is prepared to do to continue with Phase
Two? He signed an agreement. It is a very, very important project,
and I think the minister should seriously consider the request of Bifrost and the people of Interlake.
* (1110)
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I acknowledge that we have indeed an
agreement with the people in the community, the farmers around the
The member is correct.
We have been able to conclude the first phase of that project. It is,
Madam Chairperson, a project of some size. It would take some additional
millions of dollars to conclude it over the next period of years.
In my meeting with the councillors from Bifrost, I indicated to them that the department certainly did not, in any way, not agree with the importance of the project to that area. It is a question th